TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e layers with the help of adhesive or another chemical - After referring to the process adopted by the respondent, the Tribunal has held that this would be covered by the definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - The process actually undertaken, as recorded by the Tribunal, is not disputed - facts found relating to the process undertaken - There was no substantial question of law arises for consideration - Perhaps the appellant should be satisfied with the reasoning – Decided against Revenue. - CEAC 49/2013 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2013 - Sanjiv Khanna And Sanjeev Sachdeva,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamal Nijhawan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Through ORDER CM No.16831/2013 (exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. Thus there is no new distinct product which has come into existence and it would have to be concluded that there is no manufacture. 16. It was however submitted that the case has proceeded on the admitted footing that there was a manufacture. It was submitted that the matter must be remitted back to decide whether there is manufacture. It was submitted that this aspect will have to be decided in terms of Note 12 to Chapter 39 and after looking at the process adopted by the Appellants. It was submitted that under the present Tariff there are separate sub- heading and thus after examining the process of the Appellants it may be possible to contend that a new and distinct product has come into existence. 17. We are unable to accept this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee was allowed by the Supreme Court on facts because of the failure of the department to establish that the goods in question came into existence through a manufacturing process. That being the case in our considered view the judgment of Supreme Court in Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. cannot be applied universally de hors the facts. Whenever the question arises whether or not the product in question came into being from a process of manufacture the adjudicating authority is require to refer to the facts of the case to come to the conclusion as to whether the process amounted to manufacture or not. In the instant case the Commissioner (Appeals) has not cared to look into the process through which the finished goods were cleared by the manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
